Player Features and Ideas Discussion

D-scan immunity is too much of a buff for a ship that's quite powerful in the first place. They already get stats increases, increased resists and "less dumb" bonuses and layouts. There is no reason, nor need, to give it something like this other than "wouldn't it be cool if". Anyone who has any sense of history with EVE knows (or should know) how cool stuff like that generally pans out.

I'm not saying it'll be super overpowered and it'll massively change the landscape or anything but at the same time there's simply no need for it. Not showing up on D-scan should have downsides, be it how covert ships come prenerfed or how a cloak will affect locking stats etc. With these changes there'll be quite powerful cruisers with a lot of tricks up their sleeves, HAC resists AND, oh yeah... you can't see them.

Prenerf combat recons and keep the D-scan stuff or keep the stats and remove the d-scan immunity. If you want to give them "something to stand out" (as if that's somehow needed in the first place, they seem quite potent to me) then give them increased warp speed. THAT way they are actually Recons and they get something that enables them to chase a target.

The only problem with combat recons is their tank and in some cases their slot layout. Shouldn't they be like the EWAR equivalent of HACs? Right now, either T3's or some faction cruisers (hello ashimmu) are used in this role.

That's a bit over the top. There isn't much difference between a Falcon uncloaking on you or a Rook warping in on the fight, and the same goes for the other factions. It creates an out of whack balance where none is needed but it's not solo pvp shattering in any way, it's just a gimmick bonus that is in the realms of "well, it has to be sneaky somehow" where I personally would go for the "lets be more aggressive" with a warp speed bonus.

There is, a rook, if YOU warp in on it (i.e. you enter a site) has no locking delay, has better tank and dps in addition to its ewar. It does not only screw with FW plexing, but also normal plexing. If im roaming in low/null to DED plex, in every system with neutrals, a site might be camped. You are giving a completely different (and non relevant) situation for the concerns he adresses, and I dont think you realize how this bonus might be abused.
I thought CCP was being more reserved with buffing ships, instead of totally changing they way a certain class is flown which can might break certain aspects of the game. As I said a few posts back, combat recons should be the EWAR equivalent of HACs, leave the sneaky stuff to the force recons, they are quite good allready in this respect. The changes to those ships will make them abit more robust, which is good.

Now it makes sense calling them "recon" ships, I approve.

I am excited to see how this will work out.

This is a good point;

Dont critisize my post if you didn't read it properly..... I never said anything about the cloak reactivation delay chance to Force recons.

And as usual, the Alliance Tournament variants get skipped?

I'm still waiting for the promised unique battleships balance pass too.

I agree fully. As a Recon V and avid pilgrim pilot I cannot stress enough the importance of the pilgrim having the neut strength to be able to take down targets in a timely manner. Leave the ranged cap warfare to the Curse and give the pilgrim its strength back and a bigger drone bay with the bandwidth to allow it to use 5 heavies. Please don't wreck the pilgrim by making it watered down curse without any uniqueness or bonus to set it apart.

Everything I'm about to type comes from the perspective of living in wormhole space part time for a bit now.

I seem to remember, not too long ago in fact, a very reasonable dev blog about the removal of clone costs. The rationale for the change was along the lines of "if it is a false choice, if it doesn't really add gameplay (it just punishes you for being forgetful), it doesn't make sense to be in the game". ... Or something along those lines. Consider that a paraphrase instead of an actual quote.

Along those same lines, having to have a character always running combat probes, just for the most minute chance of detecting a possible hostile ship doesn't really add any fun to the game. It doesn't add any emergent gameplay and it doesn't really add actual choice. For smaller entities that cannot have an extra character doing nothing but hitting scan every few seconds (and I have this problem with d-scan in w-space in general), it is the opposite of adding fun. With that one ship change, you're making smaller entities have to decide between continuing to play the game they've been playing, or abandoning their w-space systems.

In effect, you're going to turn w-space into a land of two extremes: either roaming pirates, or large organizations that can afford to have scouts on every wormhole 23/7 AND a person or two inside the WH constantly running combat probes. That's boring gameplay at its finest, and goes a long way to turning wormholes into low sec without gate guns or local - aka devoid of any real/meaningful activity.

Pirates and gankbears love low sec.... no risk, all reward, easy peasy ganks. And now they'll love w-space too.
For those with the defensive (and BUILDING sandcastles) mindset, w-space already had a great risk vs reward system in place. The careful player could mitigate most risks just fine even when they were solo. Now things will be completely different. I don't want to put words into your mouth, however it makes me wonder if maybe you have ulterior motives for this change.

---

Here's a random and crazy idea.... maybe give those combat recons the ability to scoop the mobile scan inhibitor deployables (i forget their name, i never use them). That way we know something is out there but we don't know what. And they would be the only ship in the game that could scoop them up. They still effectively get their immunity to d-scan, but the locals have a chance of knowing *something* is up even if they don't know exactly what, without having to have a dedicated proper running 23/7 for safety/security.